Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logic Spectacles


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Thomas Carlyle. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Logic Spectacles

 * – ( View AfD View log )

One sentence substub about a non-notable concept. BEFORE failed to find anything substantial. Not eligible for a PROD, due to the prod (from 10 years ago) being about lack of sources, and it being declined due to the existence of not inline source. That source - the best source - is a one-sentence from an old encyclopedia. I usually think that as a rule of thumb, something discussed in an encyclopedia is good for Wikipedia, but not when the entire discussion is a single sentence. At best, I think this could be redirected to whatever work of Thomas Carlyle's this concept originated, if this can be sourced there (I don't think any article links here outside the transclusions from Thomas Carlyle). Right now his biography doesn't even mention this, and as I noted above, it does not appear this term has caught on in academic or literary discourse. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge & redirect to Thomas Carlyle? I found the concept insightful (excuse poor pun, and on a purely personal note FWIW), and would like to keep this safe somewhere, because despite its brevity I reckon this stub actually contains more encyclopaedic value than some much longer articles I've seen... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect per . The information from the source article can be added to Thomas Carlyle definitions section.Less Unless (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.